It’s Time to Choose a Side (This Will Offend You)

As the impending legislation of an “Assault Weapons Ban”, and a “High Capacity Magazine Ban” draws imminently closer, I’ve noticed a distinct rift amongst gun owners. This gap, or dare I call it a “separation”, was evident BEFORE Aurora, Colorado, before Clackamas, Oregon, and before Newtown, Connecticut. This split has existed between those who consider themselves “action shooters”, and those who feel they are “sportsmen” for quite some time.

As I said, there was a distinction made between the different “classes” of shooters LONG before any of the most recent tragedies had occurred. There was even a notorious article written by Jim Zumbo in 2007 in the Outdoor Life Magazine, where he said that AR-15’s were “terrorist weapons”, and had no “sporting or hunting” purpose. Even after that article, and Zumbo’s admittance to being wrong, the misconceptions continue today. Look at the debacle with RECOIL Magazine this past fall. That WHOLE article was a win for the “other” side. I’ve seen it for years at my local shooting range…err…I mean “Sportsman’s Club”. The trap shooters fight with the skeet shooters, the cowboy action shooters fight with the IDPA shooters, and the long distance shooters fight with the silhouette shooters. I remember sitting at a meeting once at my local club, as words were exchanged between “sportsmen” of different disciplines. All I could think to myself was, “wow, all an anti-gun person needs to do would be to sit in on one of these meetings, and they’d have endless fuel to add to their fire!” Any anti-gun person could sit there, listen to insults being hurled around, childish accusations being made, and argue that if we couldn’t even get along with each other, how dare we claim to be responsible enough to own guns? It was sad to say the least, and I had hoped that the shenanigans that I witnessed were only confined to the four walls of our meeting hall. Boy was I wrong!

As the AWB of 2013 looms closer and closer, the rift seems to be growing more and more. There seems to be a distinct line in the sand that many gun owners are refusing to cross. There is the crowd that believes in our RIGHT to own MODERN SPORTING RIFLES, then there’s the crowd that sees no need for anything more than a 3 round bolt action hunting rifle. There are those that will argue that they see a need for those types of “high capacity” rifles, but not for use in the hands of civilians. They don’t see a “sporting” purpose for the rifle. They don’t believe they have any application for hunting, competition, or self defense. Ask your local hunter how many rounds his pump shotgun holds. If he tells you 5+1, ask him how many pellets of 00 buckshot that is. If he answers you 54 pellets, ask him why it’s ok for him to be able to defend his home with 54 projectiles but you can’t defend yours with 30? Ask him why it’s totally acceptable for him to be able to shoot nine projectiles uncontrollably with one pull of the trigger, but why you can’t deliver one well aimed round from your 30 round magazine with each pull of the trigger.

At the end of the day, why is it necessary to fight amongst ourselves? At which point will we, as a culture, the “gun culture”, stand side by side in defense of our sport, or hobby, our RIGHTS? After all, that is what we are fighting for. There is no PRO-gun or ANTI-gun, we’ve gone way beyond that at this point. We are dealing with the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This fight has gone past the norms of the pro/anti gun debate. We are now talking about our RIGHTS as Americans. I stood on the stairs of the Massachusetts State House, and watched a Chinese-American citizen, Chinese by birth, American by choice, who had more of a solid grasp of logic, and understanding of this country’s history than many of those who are born and raised here, speak on these RIGHTS. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, or muskets, or militias. It’s about the RIGHT of a FREE man, to defend himself against tyranny, and those who would choose to oppress him.

The reason for these current issues is that we have become a country of takers, and not makers. We are relying on others to fight the fight for us. We are too quick to say “it won’t happen to us” or “I don’t own an AR-15, so I’m not worried about it”. Folks have become content and complacent with the fact that a firearms ban or all out confiscation won’t happen. They want resolution, but have no desire to contribute to it. Why? It’s what society has become. Let someone else do the heavy lifting and reap the benefits. If that person or group fails, then fear not, someone will be along shortly to take care of you. After all, this is America right? “Land of the free and home of the lazy.” Why try and be self sufficient when someone else will blaze a trail for you, and then you can just fall in line behind all the other drones?

What does it all boil down to? The truth of the matter is this: they won’t stop until they have EXACTLY what they want. What do they want? EVERYTHING. Reagan spoke of the last bastion of freedom. It’s THAT which the Second Amendment protects. Our freedom. Those who “support” our right to own firearms but do nothing to defend it, are no better than the proverbial sheep. They are afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid of being outspoken, afraid of having a voice, afraid of being more than just a nameless face in the crowd. The anti’s thrive on that. Fear marketing. Taking a quote from Max Brooks’ book World War Z, “Fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe”. By selling fear, and instilling fear in the uninformed, they will try to take our rights way one by one. How are they selling fear? Look at the terms they use to describe our home defense firearms: “assault rifle”, “high capacity assault clip”, “machine gun clip”, “battle field weaponry”. The time is now. Get up off your ass and pick a side. You are either with us or against us…there is no “not with us”. If you don’t choose to support AND defend out rights then you are part of the problem and not the solution. If you continue to try and be an ostrich with your head in the sand, then you too, will eventually have your throat slit…and you’ll never see it coming.

Choose a side…not tomorrow, or the next day, or next week…TODAY. Stand up and fight for what you believe in. Preserve our RIGHTS so that generations after us may feel the exhilaration of a rifle recoil against their shoulder, the smell of gunpowder in their nostrils, and have the RIGHT to protect them, against evil, and tyranny, so that they may live as a free person, in a free country, that respects a person’s RIGHTS.

The only need is to force the government to obey the Constitution, they can make laws imprisoning criminal use of firearms forever, but they cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear them in any lawful activity.

Annie Oakley

Well said, Matt.

http://monderno.com/ Brandon

Well said brother, I chose a side long ago.

http://profile.yahoo.com/H7ZPPPBHE2IAZ7TESCDNGP3R2U Grumpy Old Fart

I don’t own any firearms, and never have. Nonetheless, when someone names ANY weapon (short of WMDs) as something that should not be in civilian hands, but only in the hands of the police or the military, I will henceforth have a standard response:

When LAPD fills Emma Hernandez’ truck with bullets, in a case of “mistaken identity” thinking she and her daughter are Chris Dorner… who would you trust more with a weapon, Ms. Hernandez or the LAPD? In the aftermath of Katrina, when the looters were wearing New Orleans PD uniforms and carrying weapons bought for them at taxpayer expense, do you think the citizens whose homes and businesses were being robbed should be forbidden to have the ability to fight back, solely because the looters are in uniform?

If you think it’s imperative that civilians not have the ability to fight back against the police…. tell it to the Deacons for Defense and Justice.

Stump

Well said Matt. I’m a defender of the faith and have been doing my part to inform the uninformed, to correct those spreading falsehood and lies and contacting our elected officials to let them know that it is not alright to tread on me. In any case, I will not comply with any supposed law that infringes upon my right to protect myself and my family from the thugs of our country.

http://www.facebook.com/IraG2362 Ira Goodstadt

great essay Matty!!

Matt

Couldnt be said better, everyone needs to read this. Gun lovers, haters, or never fired a shot.

Nate p

Well said Matt!!!

A Disappointed Freeman

I agree 100% with you on this Matt. If you want a good look at how a current governement continues to oppresses its people, look no further than Burma(myanmar). Guns were outlawed for civilian ownership and anyone who opposes the govenement’s rule over them is labeled a terrorist. This includes the ethnic minorities that are currently being systematically wiped out. If America doesn’t want to end up with total government control over the people then we need to make corrective changes now, while we still can. The Karen, Kachin, and others have been resisting total governement control for 64 years. I don’t want to see my country in the same situation here is an interesting video on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3czUmJrErRg

Kirkulous

I’m in Matt. I think I speak for the entire IGMilitia community.

Doplerone

We… are the militia !!! Think about it !!

Cyrano

This infighting brought us the ill-titled “Firearms Owners Protection Act” aka the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. The Sportsman were in control of the NRA at the time and they sold out those that own, or would like to own, true “militia” weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment and US v. Miller (1935). The NFA regulated militia weapons, it didn’t ban them. Our Sportsmen in the NRA brokered a deal with the Devil (the gun grabbers) and agreed to an unconstitutional ban on fully automatic weapons except for the military and police. True military assault rifles such as the M4 are banned, end of discussion. The limited number of pre-86 weapons are not only out of the reach of the common man due to high prices, their numbers are diminishing each year due to mechanical wear and tear. Tools wear out and eventually there won’t be any left in private hands. All that we have now are neutered semi-auto rifles that were supposed to be protected by FOPA..but the gun grabbers showed their true colors again in 1994 with the AWB. Every time the gun grabbers can divide us they conquer and they will not stop until every gun owner is fully disarmed in their own homes. Sure, guns can be locked up at the gun club or so disassembled as to be useless for defence. They don’t care what the Supreme Court has ruled, they plan on overturning it with the next majority shift. They are patient, we are fools if we don’t fight back instead of fighting each other.

http://twitter.com/reese_chris Chris Reese

Well said, a must read and pass on to others.

Lyle

It didn’t offend me, except that maybe you went a little light on the issue.

The big problem here is that the U.S. has been on this Progressive (incremental communist) trip for so long that no one living has experienced the time before. No one alive has experienced a capitalist system. We’re far too accustomed to being herded around, poked, prodded, licensed, taxed, means-tested, labeled, categorized, I.D.’d, impugned, fingerprinted, speed-limited, restricted, demeaned, and cared for like so many cattle, that it’s hard to pick out one amendment in the constitution and say we’re 100% behind it when we’ve given up so much everywhere else. It’s to the point where people are PROUD to be following all the sadistic rules, and navigating their way through all the restrictions and red tape that would have brought our Founders out with their muskets in a heartbeat.

It’s something of a disconnect, really. A contradiction. A double standard, or triple, or many-faceted standard if you’re all in on the second amendment while collecting your unemployment check, voting for the next public school levy and attending the rally of the Local Brotherhood of Public Employees for more pay and benefits, or pushing for the next public works project so you can get that raise or that fat contract.

We’re torn apart, and permanently. We have failed already unless we can rediscover the Original Principles along with all the thinking behind them. We’re cowards, begging for the next handout or special tax exemption while begging our Masters to respect our “rights”. It’s contemptible, and the Masters are loving it. Self-reliance is a major key to all this– Confidence, and maybe even some faith, for if we are dependent, we’re willing slaves and we don’t deserve liberty.

We’re torn apart, and permanently, we have failed already, unless we can rediscover the Original Principles along with all the thinking behind them.

(There now— I bet THAT offended some folks. And it should.)

bogbeagle

A thoughtful response, Lyle.

You are right. Gun prohibition is merely a symptom of the wider problem … which is collectivism.

AFAICS, no Western society recognises Private Property. Everything you own and are is now subject to confiscation, at the whim of the electorate.

The only things that stand between Property and those who would seize it, are the will and ability to RESIST.

Of course, when I speak of property, I include that most intimate of all property, your life and body.

Alblopez

Well put, Lyle

DWN20yearsUSN

I keep hearing “The police are outgunned,” yet if you just take 2 minutes to do a google search, you can find sites that sell FULL AUTOS, up to and including .50CALS, to Law enforcement only… Not trying to demean LEO’s, I was military LE for a while, and I know there are GOOD LEOs out there, but recently when we had former LEO running around armed with who knows what he really had, you are going to say to the average citizen that they can’t defend themselves in kind? Ummmm, no.

I don’t have any of the modern sporting rifles, only because I’ve never had the money available at the right time to get one, and I certainly don’t disparage those who do have them (read that as “yeah, kiss my butt, you have one and I want one,,, or two,,, or twelve”). As the ABSOLUTE last resort, in other words AFTER the calls to the senators and representatives have failed (I have both of my senators and all 7 representatives on speed dial), AFTER the votes have been rigged (again) (after I moved to Alabama, I received a forwarded mail in ballot from california for the november election… I did NOT register to vote in california last year, nor did I request a mail in ballot….), AFTER O-idiot can get the court rigged, the things I do have are: a very passionate knowledge of how well that bolt action works, enough time on range to say without boast I can ACCURATELY out-distance an M4, and (I can call myself one because I am one) a rednecks knowledge of the surrounding counties….. I pray to whatever higher power that is out there, that said knowledge never has to get put to a tactical use…

We all have the commonality – we all have something with a stock, that gets brought up to the shoulder, a trigger is pulled, and something goes “boom.” If you want to protect that, ENGAGE your elected representatives every day you can. Personal visit, phone call, email, whatever means you have available. Make no mistake, the gun grabbers have made their voices known, they want all of our guns. From the single shot .22s, to the shotguns, to the .50s that are still out there, they want them all.

Side chosen.

Anonymous

We are all together, no one is left behind. Great post!

http://profiles.google.com/tallbass Daniel Schwartz

Like many other people, I decided, after the tragedy at Newtown CT, to acquire an AR-15.

Why? Because the Federal Government has no business telling me I can’t, that’s why. When the natural response to automobile accidents is to punish the perpetrator and ban the particular car he happened to be driving, maybe then I’ll accept doing likewise with firearms. But I doubt it.

In the meantime, I finally got my AR-15 — for $1200, thank you very much, with others selling for twice that — along with some Massachusetts-legal pre-ban 30-round magazines and several boxes of overpriced 5.56 ammo. So yes, I very much have a dog in this fight.

And, as has been so eloquently pointed out, the gun-grabbers’ idea of compromise is for our rights to be restricted — again — and for them to get a little less than they wanted. There’s a word for that, but it’s not “compromise”. A true compromise might look something like this: “Okay, I’ll vote in favor of your one-gun-per-month bill, if you’ll vote in favor of my universal-reciprocity-for-gun-licenses bill. I’ll vote in favor of your silly assault-weapons ban bill, if you vote for MY bill naming the silly cosmetic features *I* think guns should have, including the mandatory bayonet and the “Clinton was a jackass” imprint. I’ll vote in favor of stricter background checks, if you’ll vote for the elimination of gun-free zones in public schools.” And so on. The anti-gun folks don’t seem to realize that there’s plenty WE can demand from THEM… and should!!

Hydguy

I’ve said it time and time again, I have no use for ‘hunting’ or ‘sporting guns, and quite frankly, under the decision rendered in US v MILLER, those are the guns that the gov’t has the ability to regulate, as things like Purdy shotguns, guns chambered in oddball calibers like .243 WSM, the belted magnums, and so on are NOT protected for failing to be found to have a suitable militia use as described by Justice McReynolds: “”In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
However, a short barreled shotgun most certainly did, and still does, as do many machine guns, handguns, and semi-auto firearms that have the same cosmetic features as military weapons.
Fudds, and other spineless ‘sportsmen’ can piss off.

Capac2727

+1

Excellent letter and thank you for taking the time to write it.

I am new to the world of firearms but even when I didn’t own any firearms I wholeheartedly supported our 2nd amendment rights. You are 100% correct in pointing out that dissension amongst our ranks will lead to all of our 2nd amendment rights being systematically taken away. We are all on the same team here and I hope your letter will remind some people that if you don’t support the 2nd amendment completely then you are just giving the anti-rights crowd more ways to divide us and then defeat us.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Anonymous

This is one of the 1st posts I have read where they actually mentioned tyranny being the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Nice to see someone actually gets it. Our founders were clear that the 2nd Amendment is the acknowledgement that the people should have any weapon the military has so that they will be on a level playing field with them should tyranny abound…to protect ones self from threats foreign or domestic…so we already have vast 2nd Amendment violations, like banning anyone from having a firearm, even felons. Back in our founders day, if you went to jail you paid your debt to society and then were just like everyone else when you got out, not a 2nd class citizen severely limited in your options for the rest of your life. People will say that there would be a backlash of crime if you allowed them to have guns now but that is a result of the illegal law in the 1st place. Otherwise those who would commit crimes, would have tried and would either be dead or in jail, but that is no excuse to further violate the Constitution.

Another example is the heavy restriction on machine guns. Unless they were to take full-auto’s from the military, every citizen has the right to own one. Look at the Swiss, it is mandatory that EVERY home has at least 1 machine gun in it and they have almost no gun crime and no one will invade them ever…there are plenty of examples where more guns = less gun crime.

These things are all part of the left’s plan to disarm America and create dependence on the Govt.

Our current administration is about as corrupt as it gets. Their end-game is to instate their utopian society but they need to 1st make everything so bad that the people run to them begging for a solution and will be willing to give up all their rights in exchange for the “solution” which will ultimately result in an elite ruling class to whom the rules don’t apply and everyone else will be equally miserable.

http://profile.yahoo.com/7TBC5JYXJLTS3VPZV3G3IY7YFI Jim

Well written Matt and thank you for sending it out in an email. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment in this article. Unity is key… There is no way I’m going to sit this one out! I’ve done what I can by contacting my elected officials. Of course my state rep’s (Note: Massachusetts NOT elected by my vote) response was equivalent to a pat on the head and a “Thanks for your inquiry.” Regardless, I’ll continue to agitate.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Anonymous

There is an unstated, and incorrect, assumption underlying this post. That all gun owners support the 2d Amdt right to bear arms.

This fight within the category of gun owners is merely a subset of the larger fight.

The larger fight is between those who understand what rights are, why they exist, who has these rights, who is the ultimate sovereign, and the purpose of a just government; VERSUS those who don’t understand these things. It comes down to Locke.

It should not come as such a shock that many in the “those who don’t undersand” crowd, nevertheless own firearms. (a Venn Diagram would be useful, but I can’t make one in these comments) Sometimes, liberals hunt too. Or shoot skeet, or own a gun for personal defense, or whatever their individual reasons for owning a gun are. They nevertheless do not understand the 2d Amdt or why it exists.

Furthermore, the same could be said of any other right, not just the 2d Amdt right to bear arms. “Those who don’t understand” would accept infringements on any right, provided that the infringement does not affect them personally or individually (as they think of it).

Mr. DeVito urges the subgroup of gun owners within the larger group of “those who don’t understand” to make a decision, and to choose sides.

I submit that they already have. They ALREADY “[s]tand up and fight for what [they] believe in.” It simply isn’t what you & I believe in.

MPHoracek

Great article Matt! I’m out in Western MA and this state is terrible for firearms enthusiasts. Being so near UMass Amherst I have a great many friends that identify themselves as Democrats and as such, are against the 2nd Amendment. So every time I get into a 2A debate with them, the first thing I say after they tell me I don’t need an AR or a 30 round mag, I ask them how they would feel about losing the First Amendment. And when they scoff and say they would never willingly give up their 1A rights, I respond that is EXACTLY the reason for the 2A. If we lose the 2A, any day after that, they can take away EVERY OTHER RIGHT we enjoy as Americans. EVERY TIME they nod in wonderment and BOOM, I have converted them lol!
-Mark
“Gun control” is like trying to prevent drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.